social influence Flashcards
Name and explain the three ways in which Herbert Kelman suggested people conform to the opinion of a majority.
Internalisation: when a person genuinely accepts group norms which is likely to be because attitudes have been internalised and this change is present in public and in private.
Identification: Publically changing our opinions to conform to the opinions and behaviour of a group which we value and identify with.
Compliance: A superficial change which consists of going along with others in public but privately not changing personal opinions or behaviour.
Explain the two-process theory of conformity.
Suggests that there are two main reasons people conform: the need to be liked and the need to be right.
Informational social influence: agreeing with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is right and we also want to be right. This may lead to internalisation.
Normative social influence: Agreeing to the opinion of the majority because we want to be accepted, gain social approval and be liked. This may lead to compliance.
Evaluate types and explanations of conformity.
There is research support for informative social influence. It was found that there was greaeter conformity to incorrect answers to difficult questions than to easier ones. This was most true for those who rater their mathematical ability to be poor. This supports informative social influence as it shows that we copy others thinking they are right in situations of uncertainty.
Individual differences may effect normative social influence. Some people are nAffiliators and have a greater need for affliction while others don’t care as much. A study found that students with a greater need for affiliation were more likely to conform. This shows that individual differences affect how normative social influences affects someone.
The two process theory suggests that EITHER NSI or ISI are involved in behaviour but they are actually both involved and so it is hard to tell which one is at work in experiments.
A limitation is that informational social influence is affected by individual differences. For example, students have been found to be less conformist and there is little conformity in engineering students.
Explain the Aim, Procedure, and Findings of Asch’s study.
Aim: to test conformity
Procedure: Showed participants 2 white cards at the same time. One had a standard line and the other had 3 lines on it. They had to match the standard one with one of the three. They used 123 male American undergraduates and each ‘naive’ person was tested with 6-8 Confederates.
Findings: The naive participant gave the wrong answer 36.8 percent of the time. Overall, 75 percent of participants conformed at least once. The extent to which participants conform when the answer is unambiguous is known as the Asch effect. Most participants said they conformed to avoid social rejection (normative social influence).
Explain Asch’s variations.
Group size:
- Asch found that conformity rose up to 31.8% with 3 confederates but after this little effect was created by adding confederates. This shows that while a small majority is not sufficient for conformity, there is no need for too many people.
Unanimity:
- Asch introduced another confederate who sometimes gave the right answer and sometimes gave the wrong one. He found that the presence of a dissenting confederate reduced conformity by a quarter. The dissenting confederate enabled the naive participant to behave more independently.
Task difficulty:
- Asch found that conformity increased when he made the comparison lines more similar in length, thus making the task more difficult. This suggests that ISI plays a greater role when the task is more ambiguous.
Evaluate Asch’s research.
At the time when Asch carried out his experiment, America was especially conformist and so it made sense to conform to established social norms. Society has changed since them and people are less conformist today. This is a limitation as it limits the external validity of the findings and suggests that the Asch effect is not consistent over all situations.
Another limitation is that demand characteristics may have influenced the findings. This is because the task was artificial and trivial, giving the participants no reason not to conform. This gives the findings low real-life application and generalisability.
Another limitation is that there are ethical issues involved. This is because the participants were deceived. However, the information was valuable and there was little damage or harm caused to participants and so it might be said that it was worth the deception.
It has limited application. Women may be more conformist as they are more concerned about social relationshiops and studies show conformity is higher in collectivist cultures. Cultural and gender differences were not taken into account.
Identify the aim, procedure, findings and conclusion of Zimbardo’s Standford Prison Experiment.
Aim: To find out whether guards in prisons across America were so brutal because of having a sadistic personality or because of the situation.
Procedure: A mock prison was made in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. Zimbardo advertised for students to participate through newspapers and chose those who were emotionally stable to volunteer. They were randomly allocated to the roles of prisoner or guard. The prisoners were arrested at home to make it seem more real and were blindfolded, strip-searched and issued a uniform and number. The social roles were strictly divided; the prisoners were heavily monitored and had strict rules and were only referred to by their numbers while the guards were given their own uniform with mirror shades, handcuffs and keys and were told they could not physically hurt the prisoners but otherwise had full control over them.
Findings:
- guards took up their roles with enthusiasm
- guards behaviour became a threat to psychological and physical health of prisoners and study was ended after 6 days instead of 14
- prisoners rebelled after 2 days by ripping their uniforms, swearing at guards etc
- Guards responded by playing prisoners up against each other
- guards constantly harrassed prisoners and reminded them that they were in charge ie frequent headcounts at night
- prisoners became subdued and depressed after rebellion and 3 were released earlier.
Conclusion: Study revealed the power of the situation to influence people’s behavior as everyone ( guards, prisoners, and researchers) conformed to their roles. Even one time volunteers acted as though they were in a real prison.
Evaluate Zimbardo’s prison experiment.
+ good control over variables ie emotionally stable participants were chosen to rule out paricipant variables. Good internal validity.
- lack of realism because participants may have been acting rather than conforming ie may have been performing based on stereotypes. One guard said he based his character on a fictional brutal character. HOWEVER Zimbardo found that it felt real to participants as 90 percent of prisoner conversations were about prison life. High internal validity.
- Zimbardo may be exaggerating the effect of the situation on conformity. Only a third of guards behaved brutally, another third wanted to apply the rules fairly and another third wanted to help the prisoners. Zimbardo’s conclusion may be overstated and ignore dispositional influences such as personality.
- ethical issues because of Zimbardo’s dual role (researcher and superintendent). When a prisoner asked to leave, Z responded from the viewpoint of a superintendent rather than that of a psychologist with a duty of care towards his participants. This violates the right to withdraw by making in confusing.
Outline the aim, procedure and findings of Milgram’s original obedience study.
Aim: To investigate why so many Germans had obeyed Hitler and killed minority groups and whether they were more obedient.
Procedure:
- 40 male participants through newspaper adverts and flyers
- advertised study about memory
- ranged from 20-50 years and different skill levels
- paid $4.50 (very reasonable at the time)
- rigged draw where Mr. Wallace, a confederate, was always the learner and the participant was always the teacher. There was also an experimenter in a lab coat.
- the learner was in an electric chair and the teacher gave them a progressively worse electric shock every time they answered a question wrong.
- the shocks were labeled from slight shock up to severe shock. Mr. Wallace pounded on the wall at 300 V and then didn’t answer the next question. He pounded on the wall again at 315 V and then there was no further response.
- the experimenter used four standard prompts if the participant wanted to stop.
Findings:
- 0 participants stopped before 300 V
- 12.5 % (5 participants) stopped at 300 V
- 65 % continued to maximum
- Qualitative data showed that participants showed signs of extreme tension such as sweating and stuttering
All participants were debriefed and reassured that their behaviour was normal. 84 percent report being happy to have participated.
Name three of Milgram’s situational variables.
Proximity
Location
Uniform
Explain Milgram’s variations of proximity.
In the baseline study, the participant could not see Mr. Wallace. In this variation, they were in the same room and obedience dropped from 65 percent to 40 percent. In a more extreme variation, the participant had to force the learner’s hand onto an electric shock plate when he refused to answer a question. This is called the touch proximity condition, obedience dropped to 30 percent. In the remote instruction condition, the experimenter gave orders by the phone. This resulted in obedience dropping to 20.5 percent and participants often lied by giving a weaker shock.
Explain Milgram’s location variation.
Milgram ran the study in a worn down study rather than a prestigious university. The experimenter thus had less authority and obedience fell to 47.5 percent.
Explain Milgram’s uniform variation.
In the baseline study, the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority. In this variation, the experimenter left at the start of the procedure for an important phone call and a confederate who appeared to be an ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes took over. Obedience dropped to 20 percent.
Evaluate Milgram’s variations.
+ it has research support. A field experiment in New York found that people were twice as likely to pick up litter or give a confederate a coin if they were wearing a security guard’s uniform than if they were wearing a jacket and tie. This supports Milgram’s conclusion that a uniform conveys authority and is likely to produce obedience.
- it lacks internal validity. In the baseline study, many participants worked out that the procedure was fake. This was more likely to happen in the variations as there is extra manipulation. Even Milgram recognised that using a member of the public was easy to work out as not being real. This is a limitation as it is unclear whether the results were due to obedience or the participants looking through the deception and acting accordingly.
+ Milgram’s variations and original study have cross-cultural replications which have found the same findings. A study found an obedience rate of over 90 percent in Spanish students which shows that Milgram’s conclusions are not limited to American males. However, another study found that most replications have taken place in Western countries which are not very different to the USA so it cannot be concluded that the variations can be generalised everywhere.
+ Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time to see the effect it would have on obedience. All other procedures and variables were kept the same and the study was replicated several times. This means that the findings have good validity as it is easier to establish that the IV is what is affecting the DV rather than an extraneous variable doing so.
Name 2 explanations for obedience.
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
